Origins debate, what difference does it make?

Because the truth matters?

Possibly because there are people that want to ignore evidence in favour of their own interpretation of a particular book, and more importantly, they want to teach everyone's children the origin story from this book, regardless of what the evidence says.

Ignoring evidence isn't a good thing.

I don't discuss "origins". I discuss extant species evolving from pre-existing life aka Evolution and a falsified scientific theory aka Creationism.

(first post yay! )

I spend many hours thinking about evolution of mankind. My country enforce good biology education and I am proud to have good education in evolution.

Pats said:

During the holidays, schools tell children of various holiday celebrations in social studies class. How would you feel if one or more origins stories were covered in social studies in public schools?

Click to expand...

Not a problem at all. In fact I'd say it should be covered, if not in social studies then in a history class. What it should not be taught as, is science.

Something to do...

Pats said:

I am in no way meaning to imply that it does not matter, btw. I want to make that clear up front. I'm just wanting to hear from others what draws them to these discussions/debates and keeps them involved.

Click to expand...

Quite a few bright posters sharing their knowledge relating to biology, genetics, astronomy, and geology. That and you hear all the hubbub about crevo on the news and you naturally want to explore the issue. I've found it to the most part to be very informative and rewarding.

Nowdays, Crevo is useful for the science news. And I've also taken an interest in the sociological/psychological aspect of crevo - how theists deal with the above fields of science, particularly the evangelical movement in the United States in contrast to other Christians. Evolution as a political issue is also interesting - particularly attempts to alter state science curriculum to be more favorable to creationism. It's also fascinating to look at the methodologies of pseudoscience in contrast with science and looking over PRATT arguments and analyzing logical fallacies. It's very entertaining.

It reminds me a lot of Michael Shermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things".

Micah05 said:

(first post yay! )

I spend many hours thinking about evolution of mankind. My country enforce good biology education and I am proud to have good education in evolution.

Click to expand...

Hey welcome to Crevo!

We don't get many Uzbekistanis in here.

Pats said:

Why do you call Creationism a "scientific" theory? just out of curiosity.

Click to expand...

Because it was, until it was falsified 200 years ago. That's why I said it was a falsified scientific theory.

True, but modern creationism isn't connected to the old scientific theory that was falsified, as modern creationism denies all evidence.

Chalnoth said:

True, but modern creationism isn't connected to the old scientific theory that was falsified, as modern creationism denies all evidence.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about the whacky faith-based Creationism or the psudoscientific Creation Science? Contemporary Creation Science is an advent of the 19th/20th Centuries, but it's been falsified too - by the very same evidences that falsified pre-1800 scientific (small s) Creationism.

Because I got too much free time on my hands. Better evolution than inappropriate content and drugs ...

Pats said:

Why do you call Creationism a "scientific" theory? just out of curiosity.

Click to expand...

USincognito said:

Because it was, until it was falsified 200 years ago. That's why I said it was a falsified scientific theory.

Click to expand...

Creationists would like us to forget this inconvenience, and would like to continue treating it as a valid scientific theory.

USincognito said:

I don't discuss "origins". I discuss extant species evolving from pre-existing life aka Evolution

Click to expand...

Good point. I dislike this tendency, usually among creationists, to call the crevo debate a dispute about "origins" with the term origins left ominously undefined and left to the imagination of the reader. The origins of what? H. sapiens? Primates? Life? Earth? The universe? Only the first two are covered by the theory of evolution.

I don't do it as much as I used to. I've learned pretty much as much as I care to at this point, so I can hold my own.

What I do try to do now is:

a) Raise awareness of the socio-economic well-being of society and how it is contingent on scientific progress. Creationists are actually hurting society by trying to restrict teaching of proper science (i.e. evolution) and/or replace it with pseudoscience.

b) With respect to evolution in particular, it actually is a useful science (inc. common descent) with a host of applications in various fields like medicine, agriculture, forestry, pathology, etc. So it really is in the best interest to teach it properly in schools.

Bump for more responses.

Hydra009 said:

Good point. I dislike this tendency, usually among creationists, to call the crevo debate a dispute about "origins" with the term origins left ominously undefined and left to the imagination of the reader. The origins of what? H. sapiens? Primates? Life? Earth? The universe? Only the first two are covered by the theory of evolution.

Click to expand...

That's exactly how I feel. It has a vagueness and amorphousness that I think allows for going on tangents, asking nebulous questions and general dodging of the topic. Since Creationism encompasses Cosmology, Astrophysics, Geology, Biology, Paleontology, Archeaology, etc. I'm willing to discuss any of those topics - but only if we're going to stay on topic.